Dave Veteran Posted March 23, 2004 Veteran Share Posted March 23, 2004 He seemed to think that what happened was perfectly legit and the way it was supposed to go down. Of course, there are always two lawyers in the room with a different view on things. Okay actually did some reading on this myself. Seems the rancher's lawyer are arguing this. You can not arrest someone for not revealing who they are and if he was not under arrest he (the rancher) is completely within his rights to walk away. Thus, the police officer illegal held the rancher. That my non-legal mind interuptation on the whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Veteran Posted March 23, 2004 Veteran Share Posted March 23, 2004 Okay actually did some reading on this myself. Seems the rancher's lawyer are arguing this. You can not arrest someone for not revealing who they are and if he was not under arrest he (the rancher) is completely within his rights to walk away.Thus, the police officer illegal held the rancher. That my non-legal mind interuptation on the whole. That sounds perfectly plausible, which I suppsose is why it is atthe Supreme Court for clarification. I hope they rule on the side of the police, I can only imagine how much harder their job will become if people are simply allowed to ignore their inquiries and walk away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azcodemonkey Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 I hope they don't come down on the side of the police. If you're not under arrest, you're not under arrest. No one can compell you to participate at all. If the cop has that much cause to believe you're breaking the law, he should arrest you. And even still, you're not required to speak to him/her at all. The right to remain silent is effective prior to arrest as well as after arrest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts